Editor's note: This editorial was originally published in the Burlington Free Press on March 18, 2009, as the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee was set to vote on a bill that would grant marriage equality to same-sex couples, the first step that would see the law enacted after the Legislature overrode a veto by then-Gov. Jim Douglas, the House doing so with only one vote to spare.

With legislative leaders set to take up a bill that would grant same-sex couples the full legal right to marry, the time has come for Vermont to move forward with this important piece of civil rights legislation when it comes before the Legislature. We should no longer deny that which is offered to a selected portion of the population.

Gov. Jim Douglas would do much to bring Vermonters together on this still controversial matter by signing such a bill into law if and when it is presented to him. If he opposes the concept of same-sex marriage, he must articulate his reasons beyond saying it is unnecessary with our civil union law and that he wants to avoid a divisive issue.

In an April 1999 editorial, the Free Press editorial board wrongly warned Vermonters against gay marriage. The years since then have proven our position to be unfounded.

Ten years ago, as the case that would eventually lead to Vermont adopting civil unions was making its way through the courts, we argued that our laws discriminate when a valid reason is found to do so, giving the 21-year drinking age as an example. We also argued that marriage was not a right.

Our state Supreme Court saw things differently, saying that the state must provide at least the legal equivalent of marriage to same-sex couples. The ruling gave birth to the first-in-the-nation civil union law, a compromise that was best for the times.

In the 1999 editorial we spoke of the need to bridge the cultural divide to reach a consensus if we were to embark on such a major change to a fundamental social institution. We went so far as to warn that becoming the only state to allow same-sex marriage would make Vermont a target hostile to the idea, solemnly predicting, "there will be violence." That prediction of course was pure nonsense.

Vermont's experience with civil unions since 2000 has shown us that people are more than ready to accept the idea of two people of the same gender should receive legal recognition for a committed relationship. The world as we knew it hardly changed at all for the larger population, though it did for that portion seeking a measure of equality. The fact that civil unions are so unremarkable today is perhaps the best testimony to their acceptance.

The years have also shown civil unions to be unequal to marriage, both in the views of society and in legal terms. Federal laws do not recognize same-sex unions when it comes to areas such as taxation and survivor benefits. Without state recognition of marriage, there is little grounds for challenging federal limitations on same-sex couples.

In the meantime, the world has moved ahead of Vermont. Massachusetts has same-sex marriage, and New York recognizes such unions performed in other states. The Connecticut Supreme Court struck down the state's civil union law, saying same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry. A New Jersey state commission said only full marriage rights would satisfy the constitutional right to equality. Even New Hampshire now recognizes civil unions.

In many ways, passing the marriage equality bill would merely be playing catch-up, except that Vermont would be the first state to enact such a law without the direct prompting of a court decision.

Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin has laid out a succinct schedule that builds on the work accomplished in 2007-08 by the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection — appointed by legislative leaders — to collect testimony from across Vermont.

Testimony at the commission hearings were overwhelmingly in support of marriage equality, partly because opponents called for a boycott because the commission was comprised of members who supported same-sex marriage. Still, you cannot call for a boycott of the hearing then complain that your voice was not heard.

We've reached a point in the legislative session when the serious work on the details of the budget are hashed out in committee rooms, and the full body often takes up broader issues with social implications.

The House and Senate Judiciary committees have ably finished the big item on their to-do list for the session, moving the sex offender bill. Taking up the marriage equality bill is an appropriate task for the committees in the second half of the session, but they must do so in a way that keeps the issue from becoming an impediment to dealing with the economic crisis. Legislators are capable of doing this.

The marriage equality law would force no religious organization to sanctify civil marriage that goes against its beliefs. The First Amendment provides any religion the shelter it requires. There is no reason for members of any religion to try to forbid civil marriage law for same-sex couples based solely on their faith.

In our society, marriage is no longer just a matter of procreation. Stable relationships between just two people are an essential asset to our community no matter what your gender may be. We recognize families go beyond the age-old definition of father, mother and children. We celebrate marriage for the couple's commitment to each other.

To question the validity of homosexual couples, or to even imply that the relationship is somehow less than that of a heterosexual couple, shows outright prejudice.

We repeat these words from the 1999 editorial that did make sense: "Vermont boasts a long and proud heritage of civil rights and social tolerance" — and we call for adding marriage equality to that heritage.